United States District Court, D. Maryland
BROADCAST MUSIC, INC. Plaintiffs
SECOND CHANCE OPERATING VENTURES LLC, Defendants
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT
J. Garbis United States District Judge
Court has before it Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment [ECF No. 26] and the materials submitted relating
thereto. The Court has held a hearing and had the benefit of
the arguments of counsel.
times relevant hereto, Broadcast Music, Inc.
(“BMI”) has been, and is, an organization that
receives and enforces rights (including copyright rights)
with regard to musical compositions owned by others. Prior to
the filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiffs other than BMI had
assigned to BMI, “the right to license the public
performance rights in” the musical compositions at
issue. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 4.
Second Chance Operating Ventures, LLC (“Second
Chance”) is a limited liability company that operates
an establishment known as Game Sport's & Social or
Baltimore Sports Bar (“the Sports Bar”), located
in Baltimore, Maryland. The Sports Bar regularly features
performances of live and recorded music. Defendant James
Trujillo (“Trujillo”) is the sole owner and sole
member of Second Chance, and he also operates the Sports Bar.
Defendant William Hotaling (“Hotaling”) is not a
member or owner of Second Chance nor involved in the
operation of the Sports Bar, but he is the Baltimore City
resident liquor licensee on behalf of Second Chance.
parties agree that in September 2016, the Sports Bar
performed, in the course of its business, the four musical
compositions at issue without a license from anyone
permitting it to do so.
are no genuine issues of material fact regarding the capacity
of the Sports Bar, the performance of the musical
compositions, the Sports Bar's mode of operation or the
communications between BMI and Trujillo regarding licensing.
The parties agree that Second Chance infringed the copyrights
on the four musical compositions at issue and agree that
Second Chance and Trujillo are liable for the infringement.
The parties dispute whether Hotaling - a liquor licensee but
neither an owner nor manager of the Sports Bar - is liable
for infringement. The parties also dispute the extent of
damages and the degree of Defendants' culpability with
regard to the copyright infringement.
instant motion, Plaintiffs seek summary judgment establishing
liability for damages and costs (including fees) on the part
of all Defendants, establishing the amounts of statutory
damages ($44, 000.00 claimed) and fees ($6, 740.00 claimed)
and enjoining future infringements. Defendants agree that
Plaintiffs should be granted summary judgment with regard to
infringement by the Sports Bar, establishing liability of
Defendants Second Chance and Trujillo. There is at issue
herein Plaintiffs' request for summary judgment with
. Any liability of Defendant Hotaling.
. The amount of statutory damages and fees to award.
. Any injunctive relief.
motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the pleadings
and supporting documents “show that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
well-established principles pertinent to summary judgment
motions can be distilled to a simple statement: The Court may
look at the evidence presented in regard to a motion for
summary judgment through the non-movant's rose-colored
glasses, but must view it realistically. After so doing, the
essential question is whether a reasonable fact finder could
return a verdict for the non-movant or whether the movant
would, at trial, be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
See, e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322-323 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Shealy v.
Winston, 929 F.2d 1009, 1012 (4th Cir. 1991). Thus, in
order “[t]o defeat a motion for summary judgment, the